Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Is Carrier Wrong about 2 Corinthians 4:7?

In his chapter in The Empty Tomb, Carrier argues that Paul’s letters reflect “Orphic conceptions of the body as a residence, jailhouse, or tomb” from which the soul must escape to recognize its true potential. TET, page 142-43. This is representative of the classic pagan views of the time, which emphasized the evil of the material world and the edification of the spiritual. I plan to engage this issue more fully later, but in this post I focus on a particular Pauline passage that Carrier offers as a supporting evidence:

The idea of the body as a ‘container’ for the soul also matches Orphic theology and is found in pagan and Jewish thought. So Paul also treats the body as a container for the spirit in 2 Corinthians 4:7, where we are described as the ostrakina skeue, the very ‘clay pots’ that, once used, must be destroyed.

As is usually the case, Carrier fails to quote the verse he relies on. Here is the relevant passage:

For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.

2 Cor. 5-10.

First, Carrier is in error when he states that the body is depicted as merely a container for the spirit. Paul is saying something very different. Paul is not talking about our spirits or any other part of ourselves being imprisoned within the body. Rather, Paul is referring to the “Light of the knowledge of the glory of God” which we can present to the world despite the limitations of our own nature. James Dunn translates the relevant part in this helpful way: “We have this treasure in clay jars, in order that the extraordinary quality of the power might be seen to be of God and not from ourselves.” The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 482. The meaning Carrier claims for his theory simply is not present in the relevant text. The “treasure” is not the human spirit or soul, but is the knowledge of God which shines out from us despite our limitations.

Second, it may be unnecessary to look for any particular literary or theological influence – much less a pagan one – to account for Paul’s analogy of the earthen vessels because “[s]cholars note that Corinth produced many cheap, frail pottery lamps.” Craig Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, page 174. So “[t]his may be a reference to the cheap pottery lamps made in Corinth and used for walking about at night. Precisely because of their thinness, these vessels let out more light.” Ben Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth, pages 386-87. Paul, having stayed in Corinth for a while, appears to have drawn on a mundane part of every-day life in Corinth to use as an analogy for his point about God using humans despite their frailty to reveal Himself.

Finally, even if some other explanation is needed, Carrier never explains why a reference to humans as clay pots would demand a pagan literary or religious influence when plenty of pre-existing Jewish ones were readily available to Paul. Paul was a Jew. He says he was a Pharisee. He draws from the Old Testament time and time again, as Carrier himself recognizes. So why, when the Old Testament is full of references to God as a potter and humans the clay with which he works, does Carrier strive for a pagan origin for this analogy? I would think the following verses, which are not exhaustive, would be a good place to start: Isa. 29:16; 41:25; 45:9; 64:8; Jer: 18:2-6. Moreover, later Jewish authors emphasized that Torah resides "only in scholars who are like the humblest vessels (Sipre Deut. 48.2.7), and that God prefers broken vessels because he is nearest the broken (Presiq. R. Kah. 24:5 cf. 66:2)." Keener, op. cit., page 174.

Reactions:

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

Other Apps

Comments

'Finally, even if some other explanation is needed, Carrier never explains why a reference to humans as clay pots would demand a pagan literary or religious influence when plenty of pre-existing Jewish ones were readily available to Paul.'

Of course, contrary to the claims on this site, Carrier does exactly that and gives the references to the Bible where the expression 'ostrakina skeue' is used, to describe the clay pots which had to be destroyed after use (presumably the point of Paul's analogy to our bodies as clay pots, regarding them asclay pots which must be destroyed after use).

But who expects accurate, or even charitable interpretation, from the Christian Cadre?

I was clear about my point, which was that Carrier never explained why the use of clay pots as an example demands a pagan literary or religious influence. His whole point here is that Paul is demonstrating "Orphic conceptions of the body as a residence, jailhouse, or tomb." But Paul was not referring to the human body as a container for the spirit or soul in 2 Cor. 4:7, but as a frail vehicle for shining the light of God's knowledge. And since the notion of human beings as such clay vessels created by God is well established in Jewish thought unrelated to "Orphic conceptions," how do you think you are helping make Carrier's point?

Furthermore, Paul's point here is not that these vessels "had to be destroyed." In fact, he says just the opposite: "we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed." The emphasis is decidely not about these vessels having to be destroyed.

So if you want to defend Carrier's point rather than making erroneous attacks on me, please explain how 2 Cor. 4:7 supports an "Orphic conception of the body as a residence, jailhouse, or tomb" when it doesn't even refer to humans as vessels for their own souls or spirits and there is ample Jewish precedent for how the term is used?

'The idea of the body as a ‘container’ for the soul also matches Orphic theology and is found in pagan and Jewish thought.'

'Matches' does not mean 'derived from', or 'demonstrating'. It just means it matches Oprhic conceptions of the body as a residence.

This is not controversial. 2 Corinthians 5:1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

In one letter, Paul describes our bodies as a residence. In another, he describes our bodies as a container?

And this doesn't match ideas of our body as a residence or a container?

Are you really going to say in public that Paul did not think the body of Christians contained a spirit?

And, of course, the containers were destroyed 'after use', as Carrier said, and as you ignore. No during use. Paul doesn't say they were destroyed *during use*. (I wonder why Paul never thought of Christians as being killed for preaching?!?)

2 Corinthians 410We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body.

Paul writes about how we carry life around in our containers.

It is desperate to say that this has no parallels to a view of our bodies as containers for something which lives for ever.

So you have abandoned any effort to defend Carrier's reference to 2 Cor. 4:7 in support of his theory?

And Carrier's point is not that they just happen to be similar by coincidence, he is saying Paul derived his views on this issue from Orphic theology. Note his claim that Paul "fused" Orphic theology with Jewish beliefs. So you are desperately misleading and misconstruing to try and salvage something.

And, of course, the containers were destroyed 'after use', as Carrier said, and as you ignore. No during use. Paul doesn't say they were destroyed *during use*. (I wonder why Paul never thought of Christians as being killed for preaching?!?)

Actually, you are ignoring the very text itself, in which Paul uses the analogy and notes that they were "not destroyed." Did Paul believe that ultimately people would die at some point? Sure, but that has nothing to do with, and indeed contradicts, how he was using the analogy in 2 Cor. 4:7. In other words, Paul did not use the analogy in any way as you and Carrier assert (no human soul or spirit within a vessel, no destruction of that vessel).

And since I said I'd deal with the rest of Carrier's argument later, your reference to 2 Cor. 5:1 is premature. Since it does nothing to help Carrier's erroneous appeal to 2 Cor. 4:7, it does nothing to support your arguments here or attack on my post. Please come back when I point out how 2 Cor. 5:1ff demonstrates Paul's beliefs in an interim state (contra Carrier) and further supports Paul's belief that the body would be transformed, in this case "further clothed," rather than simply abandoned.

Paul writes about how we carry life around in our containers.

It is desperate to say that this has no parallels to a view of our bodies as containers for something which lives for ever.

Actually, it says that through us the life of Jesus may be revealed. This is specifying the knowledge of God that we can demonstrate despite our limitations. It certainly is not a reference to the body being a vessel for our souls or spirits, which is the Orphic conception, right? There isn't even a reference to the Holy Spirit.

The desperation here is entirely yours Carr. It is ironic how some people who react so strongly to the doctrine of inerrancy strive so mightily to justify such obvious atheist errors.

'he is saying Paul derived his views on this issue from Orphic theology. '

Carrier already gave similar examples of theology , showing that those ideas were already in circulation in Judaism.

Carrier says the use of the word 'skenos' was unique to Orphic conceptions.

Calling the body a tent, implies that there is something inside the tent, does it not?

Layman still can't admit that Paul described our bodies as a container, just like Carrier said, and that that all helps to show that Paul thought our bodies contained a spirit. It is beyond me why Layman wants to deny that Paul described our bodies as containers, and that Paul also thought Christian bodies contained a spirit. Is it really absurd to draw the conclusion that our containers contained a spirit? Is it even disputed , that Paul believed that? (Paul did not think of us as having an immaterial soul, he preferred to say that we have a spirit inside us)

Still, Layman has to throw something out.

Fair enough, that 2 Corinthians 4 does not say so directly, but it describes our body as a container, and the very next chapter by Paul says that we are inside something. There is a connection between the two thoughts, even if Layman pounces on the fact that 2 Corinthians 4 does not list everything that the container contains.

Nitpicking of Layman I would call it, but technically, 2 Corinthians 4 says we are a container, but only 2 Corinthians 5 says that we are inside a 'tent'. So score one for Layman.

Inrriguing that Layman claims that the life of Jesus was not something material in Paul's view, but was something immaterial that could be contained in us.

Wright, in The Resurrection of the Son of God, page 362-363, says the passage is partly about that part of our humanity which will decay, die and rot. I guess he also thinks that these 'earthen pots' will be destroyed.

I look forward to Layman demonstrating that when you rise from the dead in a glorious transformed body, a la Jesus, you are in an intermediate state will then be further transformed. It is a busy life, being dead, isn't it?

Carrier already gave similar examples of theology , showing that those ideas were already in circulation in Judaism.

Carrier says the use of the word 'skenos' was unique to Orphic conceptions.

Calling the body a tent, implies that there is something inside the tent, does it not?

2 Cor. 4:7 does not talk about a tent. It talks about earthern vessels (clay pots). You are talking about different passages.

Layman still can't admit that Paul described our bodies as a container, just like Carrier said, and that that all helps to show that Paul thought our bodies contained a spirit.

I did admit it. 2 Cor. 4:7 clearly uses an analogy of a container to describe human bodies. That is not the point in dispute. Carrier claims that the container in 2 Cor. 4:7 contains "the spirit," whereas 4:7 says nothing of the kind. 4:7 is clear that what is in the container is knowledge of God, specifically of the life of Jesus.

It is beyond me why Layman wants to deny that Paul described our bodies as containers, and that Paul also thought Christian bodies contained a spirit.

I think Paul's view was more nuanced. Bodies are not just containers, they are part of who we are. The goal is not to escape bodies, but to get better ones from God. Bodily form is inherent to who we are. The goal is not to liberate it, but to get it a better material habitation.

Fair enough, that 2 Corinthians 4 does not say so directly, but it describes our body as a container, and the very next chapter by Paul says that we are inside something. There is a connection between the two thoughts, even if Layman pounces on the fact that 2 Corinthians 4 does not list everything that the container contains.

If the clay pot analogy was meant to extend to cover everything you claim, why does Paul shift analogies in 2 Cor. 5 and start talking about tents? The chapter imposition here was well placed.

Nitpicking of Layman I would call it, but technically, 2 Corinthians 4 says we are a container, but only 2 Corinthians 5 says that we are inside a 'tent'. So score one for Layman.

Thanks. But the real point is more substantially. Carrier says 2 Cor. 4:7 fits in his Orphic argument because it talks about clay pots containing the spirit. But it says nothing of the sort. It clearly is talking about knowledge, not the human spirit or soul or even "inner man." Moreover, there is no reason at all to see this as somehow being a result of pagan influence (as Carrier clearly claims). It likely was just something Paul remembered from his stay in Corinth, possibly influenced by the abundant early Jewish literature describing God as a potter forming humans from clay. You've wasted all of our time talking about other passages when it is clear that Carrier misused this passage in his eagerness to justify his argument.

Inrriguing that Layman claims that the life of Jesus was not something material in Paul's view, but was something immaterial that could be contained in us.

Not what I said at all. I said that what Paul is referring to as being in the earthern vessel is knowledge. In this case, knowledge about Jesus that can shine forth to the world despite our human limitations.

I look forward to Layman demonstrating that when you rise from the dead in a glorious transformed body, a la Jesus, you are in an intermediate state will then be further transformed. It is a busy life, being dead, isn't it?

Since it is undisputed that many ancient Jews believed both in the resurrection and an intermediate state, why do you write about this as if its bizzare to attribute such a belief to an ancient Jew? I could be wrong on the specifics about Paul's beliefs, but there is nothing initially unlikely about a self-identified Pharisee accepting such a view.

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.